185 skills · sorted by relevance
Fix defects in Composio SDK through focused reproduction, root-cause analysis, regression tests that check for recurrence, and targeted verification. Use it for reported bugs, failing tests, CI regressions, runtime errors, or incorrect SDK behavior.
Review an existing bug-fix pull request using validated reproduction tests and the complete code diff. Assess root-cause coverage, scope, and regressions, then document behavioral evidence and follow the workflow's branch and approval rules.
Writes a single failing test that reproduces a bug after its root-cause analysis is complete, before any fix is written. TRIGGER when: a bug has a completed root-cause analysis and you need the failing reproduction test, writing a test that proves a bug exists, the second step of the bug-fixing pipeline. DO NOT TRIGGER when: still triaging or diagnosing the bug → opsmill-dev-analyzing-bugs; implementing the fix once the test exists → opsmill-dev-fixing-bugs; general feature test-first work → superpowers test-driven-development.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when a framed problem needs root-cause investigation rather than a symptom-level fix, applying Five Whys, Fishbone (Ishikawa), Current Reality Tree, and constraint identification. This should trigger when an issue's Root Cause Analysis point of view needs evaluation, or when a maintainer directly asks to find the root cause of a problem before proposing a fix. Part of Plinth Toolkit
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Root-cause debugging discipline. Use when a test, build or pipeline fails, behaviour does not match expectations, a bug task arrives, or a task comes back in need_revision — before proposing any fix.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Systematic root-cause isolation and minimal fix proposal for software bugs.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Investigate root causes and manage CAPAs (Corrective and Preventive Actions) for compliance deviations. Covers investigation method selection (5-Why, fishbone, fault tree), structured root cause analysis, corrective vs preventive action design, effectiveness verification, and trend analysis. Use when an audit finding requires a CAPA, when a deviation or incident occurs in a validated system, when a regulatory observation needs a formal response, when a data integrity anomaly requires investigation, or when recurring issues suggest a systemic root cause.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Investigate why a defect or insufficiency was introduced and accepted by tracing code, pull requests, task context, and accessible development sessions. Use for second-order learning after a fix, blameless root-cause analysis, or preventing a recurring class of engineering mistakes.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Investigate failing tests, broken builds, and unexpected behavior through a structured debugging process. Reproduce the failure, narrow down its source, fix the root cause, and add a regression test that catches the same problem.
Investigate failed GAIA benchmark questions by inspecting execution records and classifying causes such as missing tools, reasoning errors, or answer extraction bugs. Follow targeted fixes, verify them through another run, and save findings for future debugging.
Analyze Antigravity coding session artifacts to explain scope changes, repeated rework, and underlying causes. Produce an evidence-based report with confidence levels, prompt assessments, recurring problem areas, and prioritized recommendations for improving future development sessions.
Investigate software failures by reproducing the problem, reducing the failing example, and locating its root cause. Receive an evidence-based diagnosis that separates symptoms from causes, with fixes applied only when authorized.
Investigate a mismatch between the general ledger and a supporting ledger by tracing both sides to their original entries. Compare transaction details and return a concise cause, responsible team, expected resolution date, and recommended action.
Monitor Power Automate across an organization's tenant using FlowStudio MCP's cached data. Review failure rates, run-health trends, flow and app inventories, and inactive owners to prepare health and compliance reports. Requires FlowStudio for Teams or MCP Pro+.
Inspect existing LLM application records in Arize to investigate errors, slow operations, or behavior changes. Export traces, which group related operations, or individual operations and conversation sessions as JSON using the ax command-line tool.
When a user corrects a factual error, trace it through stored knowledge, memory, identity settings, and fact records. Fix the underlying source, check related records where needed, and report the cause, changes, and safeguards against recurrence.
Investigate a GitHub issue or bug report by tracing code, checking relevant history, and testing the diagnosis where needed. Receive a concise verdict, supporting evidence, a proposed fix direction, and a record for follow-up questions.
Map repeatable business processes by owner and analyze time spent working, waiting, or reworking. Using stage-level timing data, produce a process diagram, ranked bottlenecks, and cycle-time measures to focus improvements on the main constraint.
Plan customer retention and customer success staffing for a startup. Break down renewal and churn patterns, group customers by value and fit, and compare service models to guide resource allocation and hiring.
Retrieve BigQuery execution records and resource metrics using the right tool for each task. The skill guides monitoring tool selection and SQL queries for performance investigations, capacity analysis, and reviews of billable compute and storage usage.
Investigate failing or slow BigQuery jobs and unexpected cost increases. Compare execution details and resource usage with a normal baseline to isolate bottlenecks, identify likely causes, and determine practical remediation steps.
Investigate Apache ShardingSphere issues using official documentation, code, tests, and issue discussions. Distinguish bugs, unsupported usage, duplicates, and enhancement requests, then draft a concise maintainer-style reply explaining the evidence and next action.
Review Apache ShardingSphere pull requests or authorized downstream changes using repository evidence. Assess code correctness, merge readiness, or CI failures, then produce consolidated findings or a ready-to-copy reply to a review discussion.
Investigate production errors using Sentry stack traces, which show the code execution path, and events leading up to the failure. Identify likely causes, triggering conditions, affected users, and releases before changing code.